118 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



Why, what is tho rule in the cnse cf blooliade? The perfectly well 

 established rule is, that any vessel may be captured that undertakes to 

 run a blockade; but it must have notice, actual or constructive, such 

 as amounts to presumptive notice, and the innocent vessel not aware 

 that a blockade has been established, going in on a business that it has 

 a right to suppose is lawful, cannot be captured, — it can only be turned 

 off. The blockade must be declared in such a way that tlie world is 

 bound to take notice of it. 



]S"ow, under the circumstances, is it not perfectly plain that on the 

 question for compensation to the owners of these Canadian schooners 

 there is something else to be considered besides the right of self-defence 

 of Russia? Mr. Blaine did the same thing; that is to say, he substan- 

 tially agreed to do the same thing, as I have pointed out to the Tribunal 

 in the discussion of the preliminary question, when Sir Julian Pauncefote 

 first approached the American Government with the proposal to renew 

 the negotiation that had been commenced by Mr. Bayard in 1887. 

 One prominent feature put forward by Sir Julian was the demand of 

 the British Government for satisfaction for the vessels that had been 

 seized in 188(5 and 1887. What was the reply of Mr. Blaine to that? 

 I will not detain you by reading the correspondence; it has been read 

 and is before you. Why, said Mr. Blaine, strong and resolute as he 

 was, and I need not say that in this correspondence he goes clear up to 

 the line of diplomatic reserve and courtesy in his very strong assertitm 

 of the rights of the United States to protect itself, even he, at the very 

 threshold, meets it with language which is substantially this: 



Why, that is a small matter, the whole amount is not large. It falls 

 upon men who perhaps thought they were doing what they had a right 

 to do. We will pay that, if we can arrange for the future. 'It is not 

 worthy of a moment's dispute between two great nations. Whether the 

 sealing owners shall be indemnified or not, is not the question between 

 the Governments. We are concerned with the future; let us make an 

 arrangement for the future preservation of the seals. We shall not 

 debate with you over the value of two or three schooners under the 

 circumstances. 



And it is perfectly plain that if they had been fortunate enough to 

 have disposed of the main subject of dispute at that time, the question 

 about compensation for these seizures, which is now in a very indirect 

 way before you, would have disappeared. It would have been the 

 proper acknowledgment, the proper confirmation of a friendly agree- 

 ment on an important subject, to make such a payment, and to forego 

 any dispute on the subject. So that the payment for these vessels, 

 under the circumstances, jjroves, in my judgment, nothing at all. 



General Foster puts into my hands a summary of tlie report of these 

 Commissioners. There were nine vessels seized. 



Two were released soon after they examined the fiicts; two the Com- 

 missioners recommended should receive compensation for seizure, and 

 in five the condemnation was confirmed ; and it is only right to say that 

 in respect of those five, it was asserted by the committee not that they 

 had been withinthe line, but that they found that their boats had crossed 

 the three-mile line. I leave that subject, and I claim that out of the cor- 

 respondence which has taken place, some of it since we have been sitting 

 here and all of it while we were on our way, the ground that we have 

 taken in respect to llussia is completely confirmed, and the ground that 

 we take here in our own behalf is completely sustained by the conduct 

 of Russia and the claims of Russia so far as they constitute any author- 

 ity or precedent worthy of consideration. 



